Re: No consensus on proposed change

Well, I did not notice the fine print of date in your e-mail on 11/10. My
mistake. I would have asked for more time early on, had I registered this in my
mind. Nevertheless, I am disappointed at the way this concluded. Not many on
the list seemed to care. But, that was just 2 weeks - a rather short time for
people that came on board past couple of days.

So far as I can tell, there was NO discussion on the list beyond the past two
weeks concerning the applicability of the MIB to twice-NAT. Given the lack of
consensus in this period, I am uncomfortable at pushing the current midcom MIB
as a standard for generic NAT devices. At a minimum, I believe, there should be
an applicability statement in the MIB that restricts the use to traditional
NATs.

regards,
suresh

--- Melinda Shore <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Wednesday, December 1, 2004, at 09:53 AM, Pyda Srisuresh wrote:
> > I disagree with your abrupt ruling. This seems arbitrary and untimely. 
> > Why? For
> > the longest time, there is no discussion of substantive issue on the 
> > list. And,
> > now, when the discussion is ongoing and the list is busy - you make an 
> > abrupt
> > call to cut this off. Was this supposed to be a time-bound discussion 
> > with a
> > dead line? If so, I am not aware of such a dead-line.
> 
> This is the mail that I sent out on November 10:
> --------
> The design team is deadlocked over an issue related to whether
> inputs should take the form of an end-to-end description of a
> data flow or a description of the specific resources on the
> participating middleboxes.  Suresh has promised to post a
> description of the problem that he sees to the mailing list, and
> I would like to get this resolved within the next several weeks -
> by November 26.  Because the difference is over a matter for which
> there's already wg consensus it requires a compelling technical
> argument for a change in the description.
> --------
> 
> What we have had over the past several weeks is a public discussion
> between members of the design team with very, very little input
> from other midcom participants.  I think you've done an excellent
> job describing the problem that you've perceived, but even so there
> is only one person, you, who feels strongly that this change needs to
> be made, and the example from which you're arguing is already a solved
> problem using non-midcom technologies.
> 
> I have to disagree that there has been progress in the discussion.  
> We've
> reached that point at which the same points are being reiterated and no
> new information is being brought to light.  Given that and given the 
> lack
> of support for the proposed change, and given the need to get the 
> document
> wrapped up, it is clearly time to recognize that it's time to close the
> discussion and move on.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Melinda
> 
> 


=====